By Binny Yadav
Few ideas sound as persuasive in a democracy as speedy justice. Fewer still are as dangerous when pursued without constitutional caution. The Supreme Court’s December 29, 2025, directive introducing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to regulate oral arguments is presented as an administrative necessity. Yet, in attempting to discipline time, the Court may have inadvertently begun disciplining justice itself.
Issued under the directions of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the circular mandates that counsel pre-declare the time required for oral submissions and file short written notes days in advance. The stated objective—better court management and equitable use of judicial hours—is institutionally sound. But at the level of a constitutional court, where law is not merely applied but shaped, efficiency must never be mistaken for adjudication.
EFFICIENCY IS NOT ADJUDICATION
The Supreme Court is not a trial court grappling with witnesses, evidence, and routine procedural delays. It is a constitutional court tasked with interpreting fundamental rights, federal balances, electoral integrity, and democratic accountability. Arguments here are not linear presentations; they are constitutional conversations.
In the United States Supreme Court, oral arguments are indeed time-bound, typically limited to 30 minutes per side. Yet, this apparent rigidity is counterbalanced by extensive pre-hearing briefs, multiple rounds of written submissions, and a sharply defined certiorari process that filters cases aggressively. Even then, justices frequently extend hearings in matters of exceptional constitutional importance, recognising that rigid timelines cannot always accommodate constitutional depth.
India’s Supreme Court, by contrast, hears an exponentially larger and more diverse docket—constitutional, statutory, political, and individual liberty cases alike. To import time discipline without importing structural filters is to transplant form without context.
THE FALLACY OF PREDICTABLE ARGUMENTS
The SOP requires lawyers to indicate in advance how much time they will take. This presumes that constitutional arguments are predictable. They are not.
Any senior advocate before a constitutional bench will attest that arguments often pivot mid-hearing. A single question from the bench can reframe the entire case. In landmark judgments—from Kesavananda Bharati to Puttaswamy—arguments evolved organically, shaped as much by judicial intervention as by counsel preparation.
In the UK Supreme Court, while case management conferences do allocate time, judges retain wide discretion to extend hearings when constitutional or public-interest considerations demand deeper scrutiny. The process is flexible, judge-led, and case-specific—not uniformly pre-restrictive.
A pre-declared timeline risks converting advocacy into hurried compliance. It subtly pressures counsel to compress complexity, prioritise speed over clarity, and abandon lines of reasoning that emerge spontaneously but prove decisive.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: PREPARATION OR PREMATURE EXPOSURE?
The SOP’s requirement that short written submissions be filed three days in advance is arguably more troubling. While it may aid judicial preparation, it also exposes legal strategy before oral engagement begins.
In the European Court of Human Rights, written pleadings dominate the process, but oral hearings are rare and the system is fundamentally inquisitorial. India’s Supreme Court, by contrast, remains resolutely adversarial. Oral advocacy is not ornamental; it is central.
In politically sensitive matters—electoral bonds, constitutional amendments, federal disputes—early disclosure of argumentative strategy can blunt its force, alert adversaries, and even invite external pressures. Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be insulated from avoidable vulnerabilities.
THE MYTH THAT LAWYERS CAUSE PENDENCY
The SOP appears to proceed on an implicit assumption: that long-winded lawyers are a primary cause of judicial delay. This is, at best, a partial diagnosis.
Pendency is structural. It flows from inadequate judicial strength, limited benches, prolonged vacations, and an overwhelming inflow of cases—many of which perhaps should never reach the Supreme Court at all. No amount of time-boxing advocacy can compensate for systemic capacity deficits.
Constitutional courts across jurisdictions reduce backlog not by curtailing argument, but by strengthening institutional infrastructure.
Time management is essential. Time governance is not. When speed becomes the metric of success, justice risks becoming collateral damage.
The Supreme Court’s legitimacy rests not on how quickly it disposes of files, but on how carefully it reasons through them. Constitutional adjudication demands patience, listening, and intellectual openness—qualities that do not always fit neatly into pre-declared timelines or five-page notes.
In seeking to discipline delay, the Court must guard against disciplining dissent, depth, and deliberation. For in constitutional courts, time must remain a servant of justice, not its master.
STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS, NOT PROCEDURAL SHORTCUTS
If the objective is genuine efficiency without compromising constitutional justice, reform must extend beyond the courtroom clock. Viable alternatives include:
- Reducing extended summer and winter vacations—a colonial legacy increasingly misaligned with contemporary judicial demands.
- Introducing more working Saturdays, with rational compensation for public holidays.
- Increasing the sanctioned strength of judges, long acknowledged as inadequate.
- Expanding courtrooms and benches, particularly for constitutional and special leave matters.
- Institutionalising more vacation benches, rather than suspending constitutional adjudication for weeks.
These measures enhance adjudicatory capacity without narrowing constitutional deliberation.
—The writer is a New Delhi-based journalist, lawyer and trained mediator
The post When Speed Begins to Silence Justice appeared first on India Legal.